This week reading brings about a wide array of views concerning the urban planning authority, Robert Moses, and their cooperating yet sometime rivaling relationship.

The author points out contemporary public criticisms about Moses, which we all know are numerous, yet I was surprised to read that Moses only could have gotten his way because his view and the view of the government coincided at that time (here we should neglect the fact that Moses did have enormous political influence). Moses’ dismal taste on housing design, surprisingly, was in compliant with the NYCHA design standard. It turns out that such a “standard,” demonstrated by “the lack of toilet bowl covers and closet doors” with special credit to Alfred Rheinstein’s “innovation” (128), was legally accepted back in the day because the NYCHA adopted the nature of a housing factory that churned out standardized, mass-produced products. Not only so, Moses and the NYCHA shared the same preference for “genuine slum clearance.”

It was interesting to see that sometime people who share the same vision often dispute upon the mean to its fruition, as in the case of the rivalry between Moses and the NYCHA during the post-war era. Moses wanted his masterpieces to be built upon slum clearance sites whereas the NYCHA rather constructed upon wastelands, or vacant land sites. Chairman Butler, before losing his seat due to his fervent opposition to Moses, claimed that project on vacant land sites would eliminate the time-consuming process of relocating residents in slums, all the while driving upward spending on public transportation. I felt sorry for the guy, although not too much, since his allegiance with Moses on the issue of overall slum clearance would later backfire as a backstabbing move to Moses which later drove Moses to remove Butler of the high seat in the NYCHA.

Besides the often-overlooked effects that slum clearance brought about i.e. racial integration as in the case of black and Pueto Rican slums residents, after being discharged from their Manhattan haven, were integrated in government housing projects in Bronx neighborhood. Yet in the proverbial list of pros and cons, the cons often outweigh the pros. Slum clearance practically destroyed the neighborhood, created public outrage over the clearance itself and over the loss of so many “brownstones.” And in most cases, public housing in most cities created a “second ghetto” worse than the first.

After running wild for a while, both Moses and the NYCHA were finally forced by the state government to integrate different income classes through slum clearance projects, for it is doubtful that Moses sincerely thought, without political pressure, that slum clearance areas will logically adjoin public housing areas” (133). Criticism from the state commissioner of housing at the time Herman Stichman substantially contributed the Moses and NYCHA’s cooperation. He said that the concentration of subsidized housing projects led to the development of ghettos that impeded meetings of different classes in the neighborhood and thus prevented empathic class feeling. The result of Title I redevelopment was the ultimate culmination of government’s effort to “positivize” slum clearance. It did not only celebrate Moses’ redevelopment scheme but also became the key of linking middle and high class houses with subsidized housing.

Robert Moses was extremely influential in shaping New York City and has largely contributed to its success today. Jackson brings up many interesting points arguing against Caro’s novel, The Power Broker, by explaining the positive impact Moses implanted on New York City. I mainly agree with Jackson about Moses’ positive influence on New York but I believe in some instances Moses may have tried to go too far with his power and ideas for rebuilding New York.

Jackson begins by discussing the decline of cities after World War II. Many major cities were affected by the decline in factories and manufacturing. Cities whose sole economic growth comes from industry clearly suffered but I was surprised that New York City also deteriorated. Jackson mentions the many other sources of revenue that impact New York’s economy, such as the finance or fashion industry, so it was surprising that the city’s population decreased so rapidly after the decline of the industry-fueled jobs. Even New York’s major seaport could not keep the city alive in that time period from 1950 to 1975 as people moved out and crime increased. New York’s population declined by almost one million people, a number I find shockingly large (68).

There may have been a multitude of factors that contribute to New York City’s rise from its deplorable state in 1975, but I agree with Jackson that Robert Moses was definitely a fore bringer of a positive time for New York. Moses built several great highways and bridges to connect the boroughs and cultural hubs such as Lincoln Center. His projects were completed efficiently, such as the Whitestone Bridge: built early and under budget, with “effective and talented teams of engineers and workers” (69).

While it is true that New York “never became as hospitable to the motorcar as other American cities” such as Los Angeles, where it is near impossible to get around town without a car, Jackson argues that Moses was building roadways because it was what the public actually wanted at the time (68). In other cities, Jackson states that the voters chose to have roads built rather than public transportation. Moses may have built several very useful highways, but he wanted to go even further and build another expressway running through Manhattan and cutting through Washington Square Park. Anthony Flint’s book “Wrestling with Moses” describes how Moses attempted to build a raised expressway running over Fifth Avenue. This may have been beneficial to traffic reduction, but I disagree with the proposed construction. Dividing such a historical park would have drastically altered the neighborhood and taken away the interesting culture that presides in the area.

One part that I was wondering about was Jackson’s use of “Gotham” when talking about New York. He never indicated why he referred to New York as such and it was slightly confusing to see it throughout the reading interchangeable with New York. After looking it up, I found that Gotham is an old nickname for New York City. Also I found that Jackson didn’t address Moses’ integrity very well, merely stating that it is “difficult to prove a negative” though I agree on the point that Moses mainly sought “power, influence, and importance,” something that he was able to achieve (70).

When reading Robert Caro’s introduction to The Power Broker, I thought Caro was too critical of Robert Moses. As Caro points out in the end of his introduction, we do not know what New York City would have been like without Robert Moses, but we do know that it would have been very different. I also thought that Caro’s criticism of the things that Robert Moses failed to provide for the city was a bit harsh. I do understand why Caro was critical of the ways Robert Moses gained and used power, but I do think that many of the choices Moses made were necessary to improve New York City.

Without the projects that Robert Moses turned into realities, New York City would have been substantially different and may have ended up in a far worse condition. “What is an American City?” by Michael B. Katz explains how American cities have evolved while also describing what can happen to a city that fails to evolve. Cities that failed to provide assets other than manufacturing declined as manufacturing left American cities. Cities, such as New York City that provided other benefits prospered. The projects of Robert Moses greatly contributed to the evolution of New York that allowed the city to remain desirable cultural centers such as Lincoln Center as well as the numerous parks that Robert Moses supported are major reasons that people both visit and live in New York City to this day.

Considering how much Robert Moses did to benefit New York City, I thought it was harsh for Caro to complain that he should have done more for certain areas, such as low income housing. While I understand that Moses’ work related to low income housing left much to be desired, I believe that we should only expect so much of one man. It is amazing how much he was able to do for the city and I understand why this may not have been one of his priorities. Most of the projects that Moses devoted his attention to were related to making New York City a greater cultural capital and a more desirable place. Low income housing does make living in the city a reasonable option for more people but it does not make a city more desirable in the way a project such as the United Nations Headquarters does. Building a low income housing project in a declining city would likely not attract many people. I can see why Moses would not have made low income housing a priority and, although I do think it is unfortunate that more efforts weren’t made in terms of low income housing, I do not blame Moses for this.

While I do agree that some of the methods Moses used to get his projects built were wrong, I do think that they may have been necessary given the political situations during the time periods of his work. His failures early in his career due to the influence of Tammany Hall proved to Moses that he needed to do things differently. While some of his actions and uses of his power may have been drastic, they did lead to many improvements to New York City.

I thought the introduction to The Power Broker was interesting and I do think that Caro was right in wondering about the way Moses was using, and possibly abusing, his power. However, I do believe that the choices Robert Moses made ultimately benefitted New York City.

I really enjoy and fascinated by the trip to the museum of city of New York. I think our tour guide did a great job in informing us about the housing market. Although I already knew that there are a lot of single people living in downtown city, I never thought that the number was as high as 33%. Also, I was surprised when she said there were a lot of elderly living the downtown area because I thought that older people might prefer living in outer borough, like suburban area because they have more space.

Also, one of the interesting things that I learned was that there were a great market demands for single room apartment. According to the information shown in the exhibit, there were actually only 1.5% of single bedroom apartment in the housing market. I was completely shocked by this number. Since the predicted population of New York City will be approximately nine million by 2030, and single person living alone will definitely increases over time, there will be a strong need for building more apartments for single person.

Another interesting thing that I learned during the tour was how architects can build up their apartment buildings in various ways. The way that we were used to be that each apartment units have same design as the ones right above it and the ones beneath it. However, the model in Making Exhibit actually have apartment units designed differently, not in a traditional way. The new design actually takes different people into account. For example, for people with physical disabilities their ceiling doesn’t have to be very high, and therefore allowing more spaces to be used in other parts of the room. I think that this new design is very efficient and creative; it not only allows more space, also adds an aesthetic beauty to the apartment unit.

I also learned that many of these housing design ideas were come from other parts of the world. For example, Japanese were famous for using space most efficiently. The most fascinating part of the tour was the micro unit model. I really like that apartment. It is very efficient in term of using space, for example the bed coming out of the wall, chairs hanging on the wall, wine storage behind the television. I love these ideas and I am really excited to see that project being done. I think it will definitely attract many people.

However, I am kind of curious about what kind of person will be living there. Because I think our tour guide mentioned that 40% of this building is going to be public housing, and the rest will be rented out. I don’t think that the price for renting a 325 square foot apartment unit will be a lot cheaper than any other apartment building. Because this micro unit apartment will definitely attract many people to live in there based on its aesthetically designed and various entertainment functions. Its great location, and large demand will definitely drive up the price. Even though I like that idea, I don’t think I can afford living in there.

The field trip to the Museum of New York City was interesting and entertaining. Although I do not have an interest in housing, yet as a psychology major, it was gratifying for me that I got to observe the effect that the housing pattern in New York City has on New Yorkers. Therefore, I was especially attracted to the statistics of of people living in the Greater Area of New York.

I was shocked, yet not surprised, when I glanced through the different numbers presented to us as we approached the third floor of the museum. I knew instantly that Manhattan and New York City in general foster the kind of living that only single people can afford. Henceforth, New York City is not an ideal place to raise a child since the majority of families in New York City does not follow the traditional nuclear family model; it was shocking to see that the city has A LOT of single parents. I can remember that about 30-ish percent of New York City residents live alone, including senior citizens. Assuming that seniors are not compatible with the fast and hectic lifestyle here, I think that the enormous number of single senior citizens here would have dwelled upon something else more attractive that the city may have to offer, maybe superior healthcare, rich individuals retiring on massive amount of wealth, or affordable senior housing.

When we came across the number in Washington D.C., I was surprised that it topped the ranking for the city with the most single people. Rationally, one would think that as superior civic servants who represent the image of the country where family values are put on top, politicians and judges must have resided here with their family. Especially since D.C. is such a quiet city with no taxes and low crime rate, one would think that families would have found a perfect place to build a home. But the fact is not so.

Then we visited the more artistic and creative part of the exhibit, the Future of New York exhibit. Due to the limited space that New York has to offer, architects and urban planners have come up with creative ways to maximize comfort for massive amount of dwellers. The exhibit showed how much space could be saved with the right kind of thought. The space and furniture were efficiently utilized. The queen-size bed was hidden and fused as one with the spacious couch; the wooden chair was turned into a sturdy ladder; Concealed behind the huge flat-screen TV was the glass cabinet and a fridge. Even though the space was extremely limited, it turned out to be so much more comfortable and convenient for a single person to live in.

The more interesting part of the exhibit was the adAPT NYC project, a bold step into the future of New York City landscape. The winner was offered a piece of land to execute their building design. Given the statistics, the generous implementation of adAPT NYC by Michael Bloomberg may be able to fix the housing overcrowdedness in New York while fostering creativity among urban planners. Conclusively, I really like most parts of the exhibit while attainting some insights into the situation of New York City urban dwellers.